this morning, my question. should everyone but the players be making big money on college football? plus, the millions of workers just trying to make $15 an hour. and the 12-year-old taking on north carolina's governor over voting rights. but first, will the u.s. have to go it alone on syria?

good morning. i'm melissa harris-perry. the question on everyone's mind today, are we going to war with syria? the united nations' chemical weapons expert left syria early this morning, about three hours before scheduled, wrapping up their investigation into whether chemical weapons were used in the attack last week in the suburbs of damascus that left more than 1,400 people dead. the obama administration believes the syrian government is responsible for the attack. and yesterday, both the president and secretary of state john kerry laid out the case for american military strikes against the regime. military strikes that the president says will be extremely limited. >> we're not considering any open-ended commitment. we're not considering any boots on the ground approach. what we will do is consider options that meet the narrow concern around chemical weapons, understanding that there's not going to be a solely military

solution to the underlying conflict and tragedy that's taken place in syria. >> no boots on the ground narrow decisions but the president says he has not made a decision yet on action. but secretary of state kerry made it clear when president obama does make a decision, the weapons finder findings will have little baring on it. >> the u.n. can't tell us anything that we haven't shared with you this afternoon or that we don't already know. and because of the guaranteed russian obstructionism of any action through the u.n. security council, the u.n. cannot galvanize the world to act, as it should. >> so on thursday, it became clear that the administration will not be able to count on what is normally one of its most reliable allies. uk prime minister david cameron made a passionate argument for military strikes against syria and was roundly rebuffed by the parliament.

cameron made clear he would not overrule parliament's vote against him. but secretary kerry insisted there is still strong international support for a potential strike against assad's government. he named turkey, france, australia, and the arab league in the organization for islamic cooperation, as allies who would call for the syrian regime to be held responsible for the chemical attack. >> america should feel confident and gratified that we are not alone in our condemnation and we are not alone in our will to do something about it and to act. the world is speaking out and many friends stand ready to respond. >> the global interest in this conflict is not a contemporary phenomenon. the middle east, as we know it, was created by western imperialism, specifically by britain and france, which divided the region into prote o protectorates. britain took the further iraq, jordan, and israel. many of those countries gained

independence during and after world war ii, only to see themselves become pawns of the u.s. or the soviet union during the cold war union. our involvement in the middle east is nothing new. but the question remains, are we going to war? joining me now is nbc chief foreign correspondent, richard engel, live near the turkish border with syria. richard, what's the latest? >> reporter: the latest is we are on tender hooks and so are many syrians, to see if the united states will carry through on its threats, and all indications are that it will. perhaps even tonight. we don't know specifically, but we are all on alert to see if that happens. the syrians are starting to make preparations, both syrian civilians trying to stockpile whatever they can. some people are moving out of their homes if they happen to live near military bases. the syrian military is also thinning out some of its key locations. the military has had two weeks advanced notice, so there are

reports from our colleagues in damascus that they are moving some of their most precious equipment out of key locations and spreading it to, one would assume to be, hidden places. although there are many satellites now, u.s. and others, overlooking syria, so moving large amounts of equipment and personnel would be quite difficult. but the syrians, civilians, and the people, and the military are both getting ready, as is the region. the turks are also on alert. they've sent some extra troops to their border. the israelis are on alert. everyone is watching to see, not necessarily if the strikes happen, we think they will, but how big they will be, and how bashar al assad will react. >> so richard, the language i used is, are we going to war? and the president pretty clearly tried to say, no, to that question yesterday by saying there wouldn't be any open-ended commitments, by saying that this was, in fact, going to be narrow. the sense that this has more to do with his "red line" comment

more than any particular strategic initiatives there. but if we begin strikes tonight or at some other point and there isn't a response or there isn't an end to the chemical weapons attacks, does that, in fact, mean that we are ultimately going to war? >> reporter: i think right now, you're raising a very important question. the united states isn't going to war. the united states is launching a military retaliation. the united states has done this in the past. it bombed libya under reagan when there was an attack and the united states wanted to send a message to gadhafi. the israelis twice have already hit -- they don't acknowledge it, but they have -- have hit targets inside damascus when they believed that hezbollah was receiving weapons. so you can have military actions without going to war. but it is a slippery slope. what if the united states starts to attack, which is involving itself militarily, no doubt, and bashar al assad decides to respond with more chemical attacks, blames the united states. hezbollah launches military

action against israel. iran takes a provocative action. then where does it stop? do you then have to engage in a war? the united states clearly doesn't want to do that. wants to hit a message -- hit a few targets, and for this to be contained, but where a battle plan starts and writ ends are often two very different places. >> let me ask you one last question on this question of strikes. the last time that -- or certainly in our recent history, that we've had success with this, with the question of human rights and then strikes, military strikes, it took 76 days of military bombardment to make a difference. the president doesn't seem, at least at this point, to be indicating that length of time. we're talking about maybe a day or two. again, it's hard to know exactly. do you have a sense, do people there on the ground have a sense that this is going to be a long-term situation, or are they expecting something brief? >> most people think that the u.s. strikes will be quite brief. a day, two days.

usually the way these things work is there's an initial strike, then there's an assessment of the damage, sometimes the same targets or new targets are hit again, if they were assessed not to be completely destroyed or destroyed to the point that they wanted to be destroyed. the other involvements, if you want to make a very -- a real difference, and if you want to change the regime, this isn't necessarily going to do it. the only way the regime would change in this case would be if two days of strikes gave the rebels enough breathing room to go and attack the country and take over themselves. what you could see is, there's an attack, the rebels will try and launch their own simultaneous offensive, and if bashar al assad isn't sufficiently weakened, he could, even while he's being attacked, launch a very ferocious counterattack against the rebels and claim fog of war, more chemical weapons could be used, there could be lots of

casualties in this next period. so we really don't know how this is going to play out. either bashar al assad will turn himself into a turtle, he'll go down into the bunkers, he'll ride this out, or he'll use this as an opportunity to launch a major counteroffensive against the rebels who want to use this time to gain momentum. >> thank you to richard engel for joining us from near the turkish border with syria. greatly appreciate your time this morning. and here in the studio, to help us sort through many of the complexities of action in syria are colonel jack jacobson, msnbc military analyst, retired army colonel and recipient of the medal of honor. christine bellantoni, political editor at pbs "newshour." richard crowley, and ed hussein, senior fellow for middle east studies at the council on foreign relations. thanks to all of you for joining. colonel, how do you respond to the various -- the sort of menu that was laid out for us by richard? >> i think richard got it all.

i think there's not going to be something in the middle. he's either going to hunker down, absorb the attack, and carry on, because i don't think, necessarily, a couple days worth of bombing with the cruise missiles are going to do very much, necessarily, to the -- to assad's fortunes in the war. or in the alternative, it will escalate into something far nastier and it will last a much longer period of time. i don't think it's going to be anything in the middle. i think he's absolutely right. >> ed, let me ask you, one piece of this that i started with that clearly became the major development with great britain this week is the sense that whatever the u.s. is going to do here, we are likely going to do it alone, whether it's short or longer term, at least initially. is, particularly these european nations, particularly great britain with their very long-term interest in this part of the world, is it because they think this is really about a u.s. president making an utterance about a red line, or do they simply feel they don't have a responsibility to be

addressing the sets of questions that the president has laid out here. >> tii think the europeans, especially the french and the brits and others do feel a sense of responsibility. you correctly identified the role in identifying the moderate. but the ghost of tony blair and the ghost of iraq hangs rather large in the british parliament and there's genuine fear about the credibility of the evidence being presented to them. the u.n. inspector general teams haven't verified the claims made more broadly. and the lack of clarity as to what exactly the objective is, is it limited strikes or the removal of the regime. and with the regime being removed, the higher risk of the regime again using chemical weapons, does that mean we're involved in a protracted war? those questions have not been clarified to the extent that the leadership of the uk parliament would like. as a result, the uk parliament voted against it. but you hit the nail on the head

when you talked about the fact that the arab legal and local governments have in private encouraged the u.s. to strike, but in private, the arab league says, no, we don't support a strike. so sadly the u.s. does find itself in isolation in this particular instance. >> on exactly this point about the shadow over iraq and this verification. i want to look at what putin said earlier this morning, this is why i'm sure this is a provocation of why those who want to drag other countries into a syrian crisis. those who want the support of powerful international players, primarily the united states. i have to doubt about this with regard to our american colleagues and friends who say that the government forces have used chemical weapons of mass destruction and who say that they have proof of this. let them show the evidence to the u.n. in the security federation. this sense of, show it, you have no proof. >> i think the united states made a compelling case yesterday that connects this chemical attack to the assad regime, whether assad ordered it or his chemical forces just undertook

it. but i think we have to put this in large context. we have been engaged in this war for two years. 100,000 people have been killed. right now we're in a policy of containment. which is, we're trying to say to assad, look, you're involved in your own survival, but chemical weapons can't be a part of this equation. and this odd phenomenon of defending 1500 deaths via chemical weapons, but not necessarily yet having the formula to deal with the death of 100,000 people at the hands of bashar al assad. the home run here is introducing outside force to try to get back to a political process that has been stalled for several months. that's the play, it may or may not work. >> that's exactly where we're going to pick up when we come back, is this question of how long these deaths have, in fact, been occurring under this regime, and why chemical weapons become sort of the moral question, when we come back. [ male announcer ] america's favorite endless shrimp is back!

people wait for this promotion all year long. and now there are endless ways to love it... from crispy to spicy to savory. [ man ] you cannot make a bad choice. [ male announcer ] red lobster's endless shrimp! as much as you like, any way you like! you can have your shrimp. and you can eat it, too. [ male announcer ] try our new soy wasabi grilled shrimp or classic garlic shrimp scampi. all just $15.99 for a limited time. it's gonna be a hit this year. [ male announcer ] red lobster's endless shrimp is now! we would never miss endless shrimp. [ male announcer ] but it won't last forever. so come and sea food differently. [ male announcer ] but it won't last forever. i asked my husband to pay our bill, and he forgot. you have the it card and it's your first time missing a payment, so there's no late fee. really? yep! so is your husband off the hook? no. he went out for milk last week and came back with a puppy. hold it. hold it. hold it. at discover, we treat you like you'd treat you. get the it card with late payment forgiveness. and this park is the inside of your body. see, the special psyllium fiber in metamucil actually gels to trap some carbs to help maintain healthy blood sugar levels. metamucil. 3 amazing benefits in 1 super fiber.

does your dog food have? 18 percent? 20? new purina one true instinct has 30. active dogs crave nutrient-dense food. so we made purina one true instinct. learn more at purinaone.com

the civil war in syria has been raging for more than two years. more than 100,000 people have been killed, including 7,000 children. almost 2 million have fled the country, filling refugee camps across the borders with lebanon, turkey, and iraq. 4.25 million more were displaced within syria. the united states has, until now, resisted direct involvement in the war, with no clear opposition leader to support the potential for ripple effects throughout the region, including in israel, and an extremely war-weary american public. now that is almost certain to change. but why? because now 1,400 people, including 400 children, have been killed by chemical weapons. the pictures are haunting. but the death toll is a fraction of the total killed and injured and made homeless by

conventional weapons like ballistic missiles. still, a chemical attack violates long-standing international law. in secretary kerry's words yesterday, it crosses a red line set up nearly a century ago following chemical attacks in world war i. and to fail to respond, he said, is to open the floodgates. >> this matters, also, beyond the limits of syria's borders. it is about whether iran, which itself has been a victim of chemical weapons attacks, will now feel emboldened in the absence of action, to obtain nuclear weapons. it has about hezbollah, and north korea, and every other terrorist group or dictator that might ever again contemplate the use of weapons of mass destruction. >> so, christina, is it reasonable for us to react differently to a smaller number of deaths from a particular technology? >> well, from a position of how the president wants to be received in the world, it's reasonable for him. you know, it's not necessarily our place to be able to say how

you should react to certain different types of things, but they are making very clear that this is a different scenario. and the president laid it out and it's very interesting that they sent out the secretary of state, because he's someone who was a very fervent anti-war voice in iraq and he is making this case, trying to say, i understand where the american people are on this, we're not going to repeat these same mistakes. so in laying out the case for what looks like military action, as we've been talking about, they're really also trying to get at, we get why you're skeptical of this. >> on this question of not making the same mistakes, it kept feeling like this president and this administration is dealing with a bunch of ghosts. and they were talking about iraq and afghanistan, but it also feels to me, with samantha power, with susan rice standing there, we know, with the president's here, that there's also a kind of clinton era moment here. and in part, perhaps, a concern about allowing a rwanda to happen. am i off in thinking that that goes to -- is in the room? >> well, there is a narrative

about never again, but what is the line at which -- i mean, the united states rhetorically has said, assad has to go. it is u.s. policy, but it has only, up until now, backed up that policy with political effort, you know, and some light arms, but not direct military involvement. so there is a larger international question. but i think we're seeing, you know, jack and i are used to dealing with a vietnam syndrome. now we're dealing with an iraq syndrome, you know, which is skepticism about what military action can actually accomplish. that's not necessarily a bad thing. you know, based on our limited successes and disastrous failures, most recently, in iraq. but there's also a skepticism about american power, its role in the world, and this gap between what we say and what we're prepared to do. and this has potentially longer range, you know, implications. >> so let me -- yeah, please. >> you mentioned rwanda, but there's a real risk that by removing assad, whatwe we're gog

to create is a genocide against the minority communities inside syria. >> is there any possibility that we would be removing assad with these strikes? >> not necessarily with these strikes, but if he then uses chemical weapons again and again, we're drawn into this war, much more than we're anticipating. and that's -- there's a real risk that would happen. he's got no incentive not to use these weapons. used them in egypt and yemen in '67. kerry rightly identified they were used against iran in the '80s. and there have been 30 instances so far of assad using these weapons on a smaller scale, and having pushed him into a corner, where he now feels that this is, perhaps, his last option to use against the option. there's, god forbid a chance that he may do that again. if he does so, if he is then removed either by the opposition or by u.s. and other bombings, the real fear is what we're seeing in egypt, in tunisia, in libya, that is turning on their religious minorities.

christians, and others inside syria genuinely fear a backlash against them. and that's where the rwanda thought ought to enter our heads. genocide in syria at the hands of the sunni majority. >> so that empirical reality on the ground, about whether or not syria, in fact, has a sufficient civil society, and a set of organized alternatives that could fill a vacuum if assad is gone is the deep empirical case here. but there's also a theoretical one here about nation states and about sovereignty. and about whether or not, simply as a result of technology or human rights violations, that the u.s. or anyone else has a right to step in on the sovereignty of another nation. and sort of, then, where is that line? is that line for us as americans using the death penalty against our own citizens? is it there because we force feed people in guantanamo bay? it does feel like there's a theoretical question, but are we meant to just put that on the side because of the realities of human life? >> the dilemma here, whatever

military action is taken will not be legal. it will not probably even be seen as legitimate. you know, kosovo is in the backdrop here. and while it was illegal in 1999, it was broadly seen as legitimate. but by the same token, you know, we have a situation where the united nations is the provider of that legality and that legitimacy, and has been deliberately sidelined by opposition from russia and china. so in part, it's about, also about, you know, who upholds the international standards that we hope we're advancing in the 21st century. and it's,, you know -- so i think that president obama has drawn an appropriate red line. he may not have done it purposefully, but having drawn it, it is vitally important to defend it. >> and that's exactly where we will come back and talk next. i want to talk more about president's credibility and to the extent to which that is driving these decisions in the next few days.

it matters because a lot of

other countries, whose policies challenged these international norms, are watching. they're watching. they want to see whether the united states and our friends mean what we say. >> secretary of state kerry speaking out about u.s. credibility on the world stage. there are other types of credibility. the credibility our president and our country's policies both at home and abroad have, with us, as well as with the world audience. so let me ask, colonel, if we go in, a few days of strikes, maybe there's a cessation of the action of assad, is that enough to establish us as a strong world force on this question? >> for a short period of time, but i think everybody expects there to be something other than that, that it won't be just a punitive strike. that there will be some positive, longer term impact, and of course, that's not going to happen unless we continue the

attacks, which we can do. the real threat, one of the real threats, is that even if assad does not counterattack, use more chemical weapons, kill more civilians, in bigger and bigger numbers and all the rest of that stuff, if we have no positive effect on the long-term outcome in syria, despite what the president and secretary of state have said about the limited nature of the attacks, i think there's -- what credibility we do establish by making this attack, i think, gets eroded over time. >> but it felt to me that part of what the president said, initially, when he came to power was, no unilateral action, a different, a kind of obama doctrine in the world, and the notion that we would establish credibility in a different way. not that we would establish it through sheer force and might, but that we would establish credibility through relationship. would this undermine that aspect of the this sort of new obama credibility? >> well, what pj is saying, i think it's a hope more than anything, that this might be the

catalyst to get the political -- a political solution started again. a search for political -- and they're not mutually exclusive. we've seen it many, many times before. there was the old fight, talk strategy the north vietnamese, which worked tremendously well for them. they managed to take over vietnam as a result of it. in the best of circumstances, that's the result. but, of course, there's always danger that the result is going to be exactly the opposite. >> in the middle east, the united states is damned if it does, damned if it doesn't in almost every circumstance. you're right the to identify obama's hunch towards diplomacy. he's tried that over the past two years in egypt and today there's more anti-americanism in egypt than at any other time. there's that to bear in mind. in syria, whatever the u.s. does doesn't do enough for turkey and other allies, and whatever it does is going too far for some of the others. it brings us back in this position of difficulty in that it's much better to take

reputational risk and reputational damage to the u.s. rather than risk greater loss in blood and treasure for the united states of america and the middle east. >> and don't forget, this is all happening in the time context of the president heading to russia for the g-20, in a very, very tense situation. and a lot of the leaders -- >> it's going to be over by then. >> that's what they're looking at. and heading the there tuesday night. he's going to come back friday. could be over by then. >> is there one key geopolitical sort of best case scenario? is it the -- using the strikes in order to get the talks? >> that is the most fortuitous outcome, but as we all say, that's a long ball. in the short-term, i think the reality is, this could continue tragically for a period of time. i mean, civil wars go on for a decade or many. this is still year three. and sometimes, political solutions only emerge as was the case in bosnia, after a civil

war burns itself out for a while. so it is a dilemma in that taking action has consequences, not taking action, as john kerry said yesterday, has consequences. and i think the strategy for the moment is not one of transformation. what's remarkable about the argument for this attack is, gone is the transformative language of ten years ago or even two years ago. this is a sober, realistic assessment of what can be done. it's a limited step. it can hope the door not only for a political solution, it can, as jack said, also open the door that this will be the first act among many that will need to be done over the course of months and years to try to solve this. >> there's a real object lesson in this whole exercise. we have very short memories, i'm afraid. but we've got to remember how this all transpired and we had plenty of opportunity to avoid this very situation and to short

circuit our optionalty in this. we shouldn't do this again. we should think, in similar situations, how to act before we have to do something. >> pause for me, because that's exactly -- i actually think that our memories are short-term in some very keen ways and that's our kind of war weariness. why it might be a tough sale when we come back. but chantix. i told my doctor i think i'm... i'm ready. [ male announcer ] along with support, chantix (varenicline) is proven to help people quit smoking. it reduces the urge to smoke. i knew that i could smoke for the first 7 days. i knew that i wasn't putting nicotine back into my body to try to quit. [ male announcer ] some people had changes in behavior, thinking or mood, hostility, agitation, depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions while taking or after stopping chantix. if you notice any of these, stop chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of mental health problems, which could get worse while taking chantix. don't take chantix if you've had a serious allergic or skin reaction to it. if you develop these, stop chantix and see your doctor right away as some can be life-threatening. tell your doctor if you have a history of heart or blood vessel problems,

or if you develop new or worse symptoms. get medical help right away if you have symptoms of a heart attack or stroke. use caution when driving or operating machinery. common side effects include nausea, trouble sleeping and unusual dreams. if i could describe being a nonsmoker, i would say "awesome." [ male announcer ] ask your doctor if chantix is right for you.

[ male announcer ] ask your doctor remember when this carpet looked nice? soft would be great, but we really just need "kid-proof." softsprings got both, let me show you. right over here. here, feel this. wow, that's nice. wow. the soft carpets have never been this durable.

you know i think we'll take it. get kid-friendly toughness and feet-friendly softness, without walking all over your budget. he didn't tell us it would do this. more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. right now, get up to 24 months special financing when you use your home depot credit card. more than a decade after we invaded afghanistan and then iraq, the american public is tired of war. which is no surprise, considering that when a secretary of state comes out like john kerry did yesterday, to say that the u.s. knows for sure that a dictatorial regime has used chemical weapons and that the united states needs to respond, the first thing that pops into the minds of americans is what another secretary of state did just a few years ago. >> saddam hussein has chemical weapons. saddam hussein has used such weapons. and saddam hussein has no

compunction about using them again, against his neighbors and against his own people. >> it is that reminder soft bush administration's false claim of wmds in iraq that led this country into a decade of war that is front and center in american's minds right now when we hear this administration make its case against syria. and it's a sentiment that the secretary of state, john kerry, and his boss are both very well aware of. >> our intelligence community has carefully reviewed and re-reviewed information regarding this attack. and i will tell you, it has done so more than mindful of the iraq experience. we will not repeat that moment. >> there is a certain weariness given afghanistan, there is a certain suspicion of any military action with regards to iraq and i very much appreciate that. >> it will bear no resemblance to afghanistan, iraq, or even

libya. >> "or even libya." christina, nbc did two series of polls this week on august 28th and 29th, asking the american people about this, asking, should the u.s. take military action in response to chemical weapons attack? only 42% of respondent ee eedre yes. what if the u.s. were to launch cruise missiles from warships? even then, it is only 50% support. what does that tell you? >> some of the underlying reasons are things president obama has said himself. you know, it's expensive. we need to keep the focus here at home. it doesn't make sense to get entangled in yet another conflict that isn't ours. but what's sto fascinating about all of the language they're using here, when john kerry lays out the evidence, he used thousands and thousands of sources. these are coming from real people, not necessarily an

intelligence community that might or might not have an agenda. it's not that declassified document, but they are being very, very careful to say, we get it. this is why there's not boots on the ground. and it's very interesting, also, with how much the american people actually understand about, what does military action mean, what is it going to cost this country, how long is it going to last. >> what you've just brought up, what the american people know, how much we understand. i mean, i think we can likely say if you gave a blank map to americans and said, point to damascus, they may not come even within a continent of where it is. and another problem of our public schools, was the other thing, though, that happened here in this poll is we asked, do you think the president should get congressional approval? and nearly 80% of respondents said, yes, the president should have to go to congress. is this a kind of appetite on the part of american people for some type of democratic progress in the commander in chief role? >> what's interesting, a lot of people may not understand how the war powers act works and the

president has 60 days to be able to talk to congress. but it's not about congress saying, yes, let's take military action. there's not a stamp, check that box. instead, this is what the administration says. using words like, we're aggressively consulting with congress. we are finding out what input they think we should have under consideration as the president makes this consideration. there are no promises of him saying, yes, please, tell me what to do here. and given the timing of everything, congress is on vacation. they are not coming back until -- >> and honestly, it feels like they've been on vacation for about four years. at this point, it's awfully difficult to point to a congress, like the 113th or the 112th in terms of its inability to do so many things. yet at this moment, when we need to take action and do it in a way that demonstrates some sort of american standing and credibility in the world, we're meant to go to the 113th congress? >> well, what's interesting is, with the british parliamentary vote earlier this week, brit parliament was brought back into session early, and had a

significant -- >> a robust conversation. >> you know, debate. and here it's being done telenonically with a hand -- you know, briefings to a handful of congressmen and congressmen and senators. i mean, part of this is about political ownership. i mean, congress has ceded significant authority and initiatives to chief executives, despite the war powers act. and i don't think congress is going to step into obama's way, but then again, obama is going to own the political result. i mean, the dilemma, when you turn this internationally is, john kerry said the other day, we are not going to own the civil war and we are not going to own a particular outcome in syria. and that's a dilemma. if the united states doesn't own it, no one owns it. if no one owns it, no one's prepared to solve it. and that leave s you with the uncomfortable feeling that will be taken in the coming days, it will not necessarily decisively change the course.

>> it also reinforces the notion that in the end, the sole objection of this attack is because the president said that we were going to attack. and it turns out to be its own reward. and many people find that to be very unsettling. >> and it's a reminder that the other piece of memory, maybe not so much for the american public, but certainly for those who are thinking forward to 2016, that president obama becomes president obama, in part because he did take a stand, as a state senator, right, against that initial war in iraq. so you sense this hesitance, that was once a time in this country where being against war would have met that you never could have been president. in this case, in fact, being against military action, might come 2016, be something that ends up on the slate. unfortunately, we are out of time for today, not for the whole show, but for this conversation. thanks to all of you for being here. this is a critical time for our country. my letter of the week is next. [ male announcer ] this is brad.

his day of coaching begins with knee pain, when... [ man ] hey, brad, want to trade the all-day relief of two aleve for six tylenol? what's the catch? there's no catch. you want me to give up my two aleve for six tylenol? no. for my knee pain, nothing beats my aleve. it's called truecar. and truecar users... save time and money. so when you're... ready to buy a car, make sure you... never overpay. visit truecar.com today.

that lets you swipe images to multiple people. the new droid ultra by motorola. when intelligence matters. droid does.

this week, a montana judge found himself having to apologize after implying that a teenage victim of sexual assault was complicit in her own rape. all this as he slapped her adult assailant, oh, so gently on the wrist. montana district judge g. todd baugh handed down a 30-day sentence to 54-year-old former high school teacher, stacy rambolt, who admitted to a felony charge of nonconsensual sex in 2008, charisse morales, a 14-year-old student. rambolt landed back in court after breaking the terms of a plea deal that would have closed his case if he completed sex offender treatment. during the intervening years, while the case was pending, just a few weeks before her 17th birthday, charisse took her own life, and her mother testified at the hearing that her daughter's rape had been a major reason for her suicide. but that didn't stop judge baugh from concluding during the sentencing that charisse was,

quote, as much in control of the situation as the teacher, and that the teen was, quote, older than her chronological age. so this week's letter is addressed to the judge, to help clear up a few things he doesn't seem to understand. dear judge baugh, it's me, melissa. i would like to think a safe assumption that of all people, a district court judge in montana is intimately familiar with the laws in montana. but your statements in court on monday suggest that maybe you could use a bit of a refresher. allow me to help you out. according to montana law, a victim is incapable of giving consent if the victim is less than 16 years old. incapable of giving consent. because, judge baugh, a victim less than 16 years old, in this case, a 14-year-old, is a child. a child like 44% of those who are victims of rape. and the law codifies our collective understanding that children deserve special

protections because their youth and immaturity makes them inherently disempowered in a sexual, as you call it, situation with an adult. which means charisse, this child, was in no way capable of controlling or consenting to the actions of the grown man who had sex with her, and i call her a victim here, not a survivor, because while she survived for the moment, she ultimately succumbed. so she was no more able to prevent her rape than she was to somehow age herself beyond her 14 years. so your statement that she was older than her chronological age, along with implicating her as a participant in her own assault, amounts to excusing the crimes of an adult while laying blame on a child that he victimized. that child, charisse, isn't even here anymore to speak for herself. so if she were, she might tell you that it's this kind of shaming, the idea that it is somehow our own fault, that keeps so many survivors,

including me, silent after their rape. and makes survivors four times as likely to contemplate the drastic action that charisse ultimately chose to end their own lives. judge baugh, it's bad enough that thanks to you an admitted child rapist will be a free man by the end of the month, but the day after the sentencing, you defended your decision by saying, quote, i think that people have in mind that this was some kind of violent, forcible, horrible rape. it was horrible enough as it was, just given her age, but it wasn't this forcible, beat-up rape. if i didn't know any better, i would think you were exchanging your judicial robes for a republican seat in congress, because you're sounding a lot like former senator todd "legitimate rape" akin before his comments got him voted out of office. so let me remind you a couple of the same things i reminded him of. first, rape is rape. full stop. second, you hold an elected office too, which means that as easily as you have been re-elected for the last 30

years, you can just as easy be voted out. maybe then you'll finally understand consent when you lose your judicial seat with the consent of the voters who put you there. since sincerely, melissa. have i got a treat for you. new clean whipped creme foundation from covergirl. a delicious new recipe whipped up by clean makeup. they took their clean fresh foundation, added a dash of hydration, then whipped it to smooth matte perfection. finally, a non-drying whip that wears like a dream! ♪ ♪ what a treat from clean. new clean whipped creme from easy breezy beautiful covergirl.

we're fired up -- >> can't take it no more! >> that was the scene on thursday when fast food got a little slower as thousands of workers walked out of hundreds of fast food restaurants in nearly 60 cities throughout the u.s., demanding a living wage. a dramatic display of labor's power, just ahead of the labor day holiday. the mass walkout is the largest organized effort to demand that fast food companies raise hourly pay from the federal minimum of $7.25 to $15 an hour and allow workers the right to unionize. joining me now is dorian warren, associate professor of political

science at columbia university and fellow at the roosevelt institute. andrew mowsel and shaniqua davis, who works at mcdonald's and participated in the nationwide fast food strike. i'll begin with you, miss davis. you had to take time off to join us on this saturday morning. tell me why you are engaged in these activities. >> well, the strike, i feel like, you know, us workers, we feel like we deserve more than $7.25. we work extremely hard. some workers there, we have families to take care of and $7.25 is just not enough. >> so you are -- andrew, you're with the national restaurant association. you're sitting there next to shaniqua. she's a worker in a restaurant. what is your response to her about her ability to raise her family, to meet her bills on $7.25 an hour. >> well, i want to make clear, when you look at these protests, it's easy to think that every single worker makes the minimum wage. in fact, it's only about 5% of

workers that do that. there's many more there are able to go on and make incredible career and life for themselves in the restaurant industry. most restaurant owners want to pay their employees as much as they can, but i'm here to represent the other side of the coin, which is the fact is, if we pay restaurants more money -- i'm sorry, restaurant workers more money, there's just less money to pay more workers and have more hiring and more jobs and ultimately make the industry grow. >> so is that it? it's if we pay shaniqua $15 an hour, is mcdonald's simply going to start shrinking? >> absolutely not. because mcdonald made $5.5 billion in profits in the last year and the money is clearly there. it just needs to trickle down to the workers. and while a small amount of workers may make the minimum wage, the average wage is less than $9. and while some, a very small few may go on to better-paying jobs in the industry, in general, there's a real lack of upward mobility. and that's a real problem. you saw that with the strikes. people who have been working for

more than a decade and were still making a single-digit hourly wage, because only 2% of the jobs are managerial. the vast majority are these front line positions where the pay is very low. >> if i were to take, seriously, the idea that we want to pay our workers the very largest amount, and make it completely unique among all employers, because i don't know any employers who want to pay the maximum amount, then wouldn't unionization, wouldn't the right to unionize be a way of reaching that goal? >> absolutely. and remember, this is in the memory of the 50th anniversary of the march on washington. and one of those demands was a $2 minimum wage, which would be about $13 and change today. so the workers like miss davis and their colleagues, they're right on the money, so to speak, in terms of what it will take to live a livable life. >> what difference would it make to you if you paid $15 an hour? >> i feel like i could take care of my daughter, i could go back to school, i wouldn't have to be out of college, wouldn't have to

drop out of college to work this dead end job. and the government wants us to get off of welfare and stop abusing and using the system, but when these jobs are only $7.25 an hour, how do you expect us to pay our bills and stay at these jobs when we're not getting paid enough to go back to school. >> so andrew, this question of the government having to step in. basically what happens is a lot of workers on minimum wage end up needing food stamps and other nutritional assistance, that sort of thing. so we, as taxpayers, end up subsidizing multi-million dollar corporations. >> do we want to put that onus on small business owners or on us as taxpayers? right now i think we have a good balance in the system. and we have the national affordable health care act coming, we don't know when, but very soon that is going to give more benefits to workers and that's something that restaurant owners are going to have to pay for. in new york, we actually just had a raise in the minimum wage, which our industry was supportive of. so we're happy to have this discussion. it's an important one for the country about wages and benefits, but we need to talk

about both sides, we need to rely on facts, and we need to have an understanding of how the economy works. >> dorian? >> it's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it, as sinclair said once. with all due respect, we know that these companies with afford it. and in fact, the very franchisees are rebelling against the parent corporations, because they're getting squeezed. so when miss davis goes on colleagues, she's not strikes against the franchisees, she's striking against the parent corporations that make the $5 billion in profit and can afford to ease up on the franchisees, so the franchisees can pay their workers a livable wage. >> we have tried multiple times to be able to book mcdonald's franchise owners, who are often unable the to come and sit at the table, because of their relationship with the parent companies, because i think that squeeze is exactly the point. like, there are these multi-billion dollar corporations, there's miss davis and her family, and in between, there's a second level to squeeze. let me just say, we're out of time for this hour, but let me

say, i am so appreciative of you finding the time. i know it is hard to find the time to be here today and for giving us your voice at the table. >> it's okay. >> thank you. >> dorian warren, i'm going to see you in the next hour, gabrielle, thank you for being here, andrew, thank you for being here and getting a little beat up, and also thank you to shaniqua davis. coming up next, we'll take a closer look at the big business of college ball. i love football! plus, the 12-year-old, wait until you meet her, who's already fighting for her right to vote. there is more nerdland at the top of the hour.

good morning. i'm melissa harris-perry and i have a good idea of how millions of you are going to spend your saturday afternoon after mhp show. you'll spend it losing your voice yelling at the television or singing along with your alma mater, rooting for your favorite college football team to win its first game of the season. 44 million of us, 19% of all

americans, are avid college football fans, putting it third in national interests behind only the nfl and the olympics. last year, nearly 49 million fans attended college football games at all 644 ncaa schools, just down a bit from a record high in 2011. but that means that even if your team stinks and has for many years, you keep coming back, even when they're not winning, you're yelling, war eagle, ohio, hook them horns, or roll tide! the team may represent your alma mater or your hometown or your home state, and you connect them as part of a way to connect to your own youth, watching as a kind of innocence. but college football is not just about a good time and a good game. it is also really good business, particularly really good business for the ncaa at the top tier college athletic programs and the television networks that cover the games. the university of texas football program made nearly $78 million

last year alone. yes, college ball is good business for virtually everyone involved, except for those who actually play the game. those athletes whose blood, sweat, and tears sell all the tickets, jerseys, and television packages, athletes like johnny m manzell of texas a&m. the ncaa suspected he was paid for signing autographs. he's off the hook, slapped on the wrist for a half-game suspension, but this is just the latest chapter in a long debate about big-time college football. who's really winning when so many are making millions off everything remotely connected to the players, except the student athletes, who can't even make money off their own signature. joining me now, nicole hourback, a college sports reporter for "usa today," and our friend, roman ovin, who after playing two sports at the university of louisville, went on to a 12-year nfl career as an offensive tackle. also joel anderson, senior

sports writer at buzzfeed, and david epstein, senior writer with "sports illustrated" and author of "the sports gene: inside the sign of extraordinary athletic performance." so nice to have you all here. let me start with you. is it reasonable to say that college athletes should either be getting a stipend, a larger stipend, or that they ought to at least have the right to profit off their own name, likeness, and image? >> it's interesting, because i think this issue has obviously, in the johnny manzell news and this half-game suspension, and people wondering, why can't he get paid for his own autograph or a picture of himself, there really has been a wave of criticism of those rules themselves. and there has been more push. should we pay players, open it up, or do a stipend-type system. a lot of athletic officials like that idea. a more of a, just to get through the campus year, these kids can't have full-time jobs in addition to their commitment to

college football. so there might be gray areas or ways that you can help these student athletes a little bit more without blowing up the system for, you know, pay the players and, you know, you have unions and trades and all sorts of whatever you would have with these pro leagues when you flat-out pay players. so i think there is a push for stipends, $2,000 a year or different conferences are pushing different things on that. >> you know, i stand really in the middle of this. i do have this sense of, you know, wanziting the innocence o college ball to really be about kids who are students at their university, playing for their college, but the truth is, it just isn't that, right? espn is making many billions of dollars off of this. i know that only about 30% of college programs are actually earning a profit, but schools get all sorts of benefits that we don't exactly, you know, put a price tag on. is it really time to think about money for the players? >> i think in the rare case that it prevents a future, let's say, the combines get scrutinized for anything that he did in college.

when johnny manziel goes to the combine eventually, cam newton stole a laptop and was scrutinized for that. in the rare case it prevents that hardship case, where a person might want to go outside, the traditional means and get paid financially, but i think we need to stop having this conversation about life's not fair, because these big businesses and the corporations and benefit, and these poor little kids are getting exploited. most kids aren't going to get drafted. most of them won't get the value of a college education, and go on to become productive members of society. so i remember kevin got injured at louisville. i'm a louisville grad. everyone started to say, these guys should get paid. he still has to graduate with a louisville degree and go on the with the rest of his life. >> later in the hour, we'll talk about the cost of college education and how burdensome it is for so many people. is it enough to say, hey, a lot of these kids are getting educations they would not otherwise be able to afford. that's the payment. >> the education is also serves the college purpose too. i mean, it's not just for the

kids, it's also to give the guys of amateurism, you know, it comes under the guise of amateurism. i do think, though, okay, maybe every athlete doesn't bring in millions of dollars for their colleges. but i think the bigger problem is that not being able to capitalize on your own likeness or not being in control of your signature. i don't think it's weird to make an argument that somebody shouldn't be able to sell their own game pants and not get money for it or make their own signature and not get paid for it. that's more of the unfairness. if you isolate that in any other circumstance, it doesn't make sense. you explain that to somebody that doesn't follow football or college sports, and say, hey, i signed something, somebody wants to pay me money for it, it doesn't make sense in that context. only under the guise of amateurism does that make sense. >> one key example has been the ea sports, you know, these are kids, 18, 19, 20-year-old kids, they're sitting there playing these games and their own

likenesses are in the games. and at a minimum, they're having to pay to get the game, to download it or whatever. is it strange? because the truth is, we do, those of us who are renumerated for being on television, we do lose some control of our image, name, likeness, that sort of thing, but we're paid a salary for it. the question is whether or not the transaction of a college education is a sufficient salary. >> well, you don't lose control of your image to this extent. >> no. >> the texas a&m press release that announced johnny manziel suspension had a photo on it, a buy this photo on it. the most tone deaf press release of all time. and the video games are saying, oh, it's the same look and same number, that's just coincidence. so with respect to the college education, obviously an important thing, but there's a lot of evidence suggesting that these players are being brought in, football's a full-time job, in many cases they're not as well prepared as other students

coming in and some of them are being done a disservice in their education. >> so then does the argument become that what you just need is a minor league sports team for football, just as we have for baseball, and separate out what's going on with college. the college athletics becomes truly amateur. but those on the pro track go into paid minor leagues. >> i think that would be great, but i don't think people want that, because, obviously, there are people that have attachments to that school, but it's worth noting that the united states is the only country in the world that attaches big-time athletics to its higher education systems. so i don't think that that makes, you know, people -- we're really invested in the notion of, like, athletes representing your school and the college sports represents something larger than itself. >> and not just emotionally invested, but we were looking at this dead spin graphic, that was just obscene, because when you look at the number of states where the person who is the

highest paid person is either a football coach or a basketball coach. the highest paid state worker. so the states you see in blue are the only states where the highest paid state worker is not either the college basketball coach or the college football coach. all the rest of the country that you see there in orange and yellow, it is the coach of the state collect team, state college team, who's the highest paid state worker in the entire state. >> and if you think about it, part of that is because, you know, if money can't go back to the players themselves, where does the money go? and it goes to the athletic departments, the coaches, the athletic directors. and then you look at these numbers, and that's also what throws some people off looking at this too. when you see that student athletes are getting scholarship or they can't sign their own autograph or make any profit off of their own likeness, yet their coach is making $5 million a year. and they can do all of that. >> is this a little naive. i went to wake forest. we weren't big-time football, but we were acc, basketball, and money found a way to find its

way around, you know, a little bit hard for me to think of, particularly at the top schools, of the athletes on campus being the most suffering young people on campus. >> and going back to your theory about the stipend, a program like ohio state, 800 student athletes, they all give this $200 stipend. that's $1.6 million. where's that money going to come from and where is that going to compromise other part of the athletic budget, the school's budget. because, again, what happened in rutgers, the basketball coach. there was such an uproar in the state of new jersey because of his salary. not because of what he did to those kids, but what he was paid to do was coach. so, again, it goes to market value. a coach is going to get paid what he's going to get paid, whether it's an oklahoma program, usc, notre dame, that's fine. but valuing yourself as a commodity as a student athlete is one thing. chris webber said this over 20 years ago, that he couldn't afford his own jersey in the bookstore, and it's illegal, it's ncaa's rules to even get it

from your equipment guy. so it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. but this is the deal we sign up for. i will give you my education in replace for my services as a college athlete. >> hold one second, i want to talk about the dream that so many of these young players have is to go on to the nfl and there's big news in the nfl about the real cost of playing really are, the nfl's big settlement over concussions and is it a game changer for the players? ok, i am coming. [ susan ] i hate that the reason we're always stopping is because i have to go to the bathroom. and when we're sitting in traffic, i worry i'll have an accident. be right back. so today, i'm finally going to talk to my doctor about overactive bladder symptoms. [ female announcer ] know that gotta go feeling? ask your doctor about prescription toviaz. one toviaz pill a day significantly reduces sudden urges and accidents for 24 hours. if you have certain stomach problems or glaucoma,

or cannot empty your bladder, you should not take toviaz. get emergency medical help right away if your face, lips, throat or tongue swells. toviaz can cause blurred vision, dizziness, drowsiness, and decreased sweating. do not drive, operate machinery or do unsafe tasks until you know how toviaz affects you. the most common side effects are dry mouth and constipation. [ susan ] today, i'm visiting my son without visiting every single bathroom. [ female announcer ] today, talk to your doctor about toviaz. [ female announcer ] at 100 calories, not all food choices add up. some are giant. some not so giant. when managing your weight, bigger is always better. ♪ ho ho ho ♪ green giant you see the gray. try root touch-up by nice 'n easy. just brush our permanent color matching creme right where you need it. then rinse. in ten minutes zap those grays and get on with your day. nice 'n easy root touch-up.

not only is the college football season underway, but the nfl gets their rolling with a game between the denver broncos and the super bowl champions, baltimore ravens. that big game coming up, the last thing the most popular league in america wants us to be

talking about is the still-heated debate over concussions and their short and long-term effects on the brains of the players. well, they may have sidelined that conversation for now. "sports illustrated's" peter king had it first on twitter thursday, writing, the nfl's nightmare scenario is over, judge announced a settlement between the league and the 4,500 players suing over head trauma, over months of court-ordered mediation, that $765 million settlement will actually cover more than those suing. 18,000 retired nfl players will benefit from a settlement nah includes $675 million, to a compensation $75 million for medical exams, and $10 million for research and education fund. so we're talking about that other obscene dead spin graphic. there's also one for this, where $765 million sounds like a lot of money to me, but when you look at it compared to the amount of money that the nfl is expected to make, that's nfl's expected profits, $180 billion, that's the blue.

and that little bitty bit you see down there is the sentiment. did they settle too quickly? >> this has been looming for a few years. if you look at the pure numbers and say, 4,500 divided into $765 million, that means everybody gets about $170,000. that's not true. at the very least, everybody will get a free baseline test. there are a lot of intricacies haven't been solved yet. who's the worst, the guy that played 12 years or the guy that played two years and was a kickoff specialist and and there's still an argument, even within the alumni groups i'm apart of about who really benefits from that settlement. >> so was it the settlement too little, though? is this a victory for the players or not? >> i think everyone who's following it thought it was going to be more than this. >> i heard $2 billion. >> nothing was below $1 billion

at any point. and i think, so if you were giving the players legal advice to get the most money, this is extremely early in litigation to make a settlement and it shows how desperate, some of the players are in bad circumstances now and that shows their hand that they settled this early. >> that feels like the thing we're balancing here, the very immediate needs of people suffering now. the suicide of junior seau and others, just representing for us how bad it is for people living with these head injuries. but then this settlement comes without any admission of guilt on the part of the nfl. it doesn't seem to set up terms going forward for this to not be a problem anymore. >> right. well, it's actually sort of a dream senario for the nfl, because it happens before the season gets started, they don't have to pay. i mean, each -- the average nfl franchise is worth over $1 billion. so this is just a drop in the bucket to them. and additionally, i mean, you've got, at this point, a bunch of guys who are not going to be

vested in the system. you're going to have players that are not, like roman said, they're not going to even get, possibly, some settlement money. and so they're going to be sort of locked out. and we're never really going to know what their stories are. we're not going to hear from people about, you know, what, you know, why did they end up this way. the nfl is not going to have to talk about what they knew and when. so, really, the nfl did, had a big victory here. >>n't i want to ask you as a fan, i love college football, i love nfl football, i am a huge saints fan. how can i watch knowing all of these things. knowing that there's this controversy about the players and the ncaa. knowing that the players i am enjoying watching on the field in the nfl could potentially be in circumstances threatening their lives. is it just that we say, hey, it's like the military, people sign up, you know, they're renumerated for it, and that's how it is? or do we have responsibilities as consumers of these sports? >> well, i think, one area, and i talked to a lot of different people about this.

i think maybe we'll see something as -- i mean, if you have children, are you going to let them play football? maybe we'll see this in years, where it's more of a, you know, this is my child, this is my life, i can control, instead of i'm going to boycott the nfl this season and my one, you know, channel, my one tv is really going to make a difference. i don't know. it's a very good yes. i don't know if anyone -- >> but malcolm gladwell would say, yeah, it is going to absolutely show up in the context of parents saying it, and so the problem will be, parents of wealth and means will opt out. they'll put their kids in sports where this won't happen, and poor parents who are hoping for the big contract payoff 25 years down the line will not have the option. and so will end up with this sort of two-tiered system. >> we've already seen some diminishment in youth league football participation at this point. there's been a 6% drop, just over the previous year. and in high school football, i think the number has -- it's dropped by like a percentage

point. and so we're already seeing parents sort of look at that. so i think that's one thing that, like, if anything comes out of this that we should be concerned about, is, you know, the nfl, we've got guys who are being compensated. they're at the top of their profession, but the kids that don't get the sort of instruction that nfl players get, who are being taught by guys who may or may not be qualified to coach, you know, those are the people that are most aggressive and those are the once we really need to be focusing on. >> as soon as i said that, you gave a total eye rol. tell me what that was about. >> i was a fan until he came out and said, we need to ban the game. everyone's on this, football's the bad guy. football is being coached better, it's being taught better. you don't have the 60-year-old coach with the whistle who's been doing the same drill since 1960. >> better technology in the helmets. >> those guys are all gone. >> that's not -- because there are still coaches out there that do drills like, i'm sure you did

bull in a ring. >> oklahoma, yeah, we all did those drills. but, again, u.s. football is doing heads up football. there's a lot of things, we can't keep living in retrospect about how the game used to be, but each generation will improve as far as their knowledge. >> tell all my 75-year-old little ladies who are watching at home what the heads up is, just so that folks know. >> usa football is the partnership with the nfl. the youth government body and it teaches about proper tackling, proper education, and they're going into little, minute communities in alabama, missouri, whenever, and teaching the proper tackling that doesn't encourage clothesline tackles or head-to-head tackles. so this generation from the youth level will trickle up. you're finding on the big end, you're finding more fines for the nfl, and on the youth end, they are teaching better technique. >> and those fine -- that's definitely right. that said, those fines are going for the kind of hits like the scud and patriot missile sort of safety receiver and the guys who are ending up having their brains cut up are usually lineman who are taking many,

many, subcon kusive hits and so i'm not sure those rule changes are getting to the people down the line, but it's definitely better in terms of preventing concussions. >> we'll talk more about the prevention of injuries. i want to talk about a player on my own campus of tulane whose life was changed forever in just one play. om what happened om what happened so we could be a better, safer energy company. i can tell you - safety is at the heart of everything we do. we've added cutting-edge technology, like a new deepwater well cap and a state-of-the-art monitoring center, where experts watch over all drilling activity twenty-four-seven. and we're sharing what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. our commitment has never been stronger. a man who doesn't stand still. but jim has afib, atrial fibrillation -- an irregular heartbeat, not caused by a heart valve problem. that puts jim at a greater risk of stroke. for years, jim's medicine tied him to a monthly trip to the clinic to get his blood tested.

but now, with once-a-day xarelto®, jim's on the move. jim's doctor recommended xarelto®. like warfarin, xarelto® is proven effective to reduce afib-related stroke risk. but xarelto® is the first and only once-a-day prescription blood thinner for patients with afib not caused by a heart valve problem. that doesn't require routine blood monitoring. so jim's not tied to that monitoring routine. [ gps ] proceed to the designated route. not today. [ male announcer ] for patients currently well managed on warfarin, there is limited information on how xarelto® and warfarin compare in reducing the risk of stroke. xarelto® is just one pill a day taken with the evening meal. plus, with no known dietary restrictions, jim can eat the healthy foods he likes. do not stop taking xarelto®, rivaroxaban, without talking to the doctor who prescribes it as this may increase the risk of having a stroke. get help right away if you develop any symptoms like bleeding, unusual bruising, or tingling. you may have a higher risk of bleeding if you take xarelto® with aspirin products,

nsaids or blood thinners. talk to your doctor before taking xarelto® if you have abnormal bleeding. xarelto® can cause bleeding, which can be serious, and rarely may lead to death. you are likely to bruise more easily on xarelto® and it may take longer for bleeding to stop. tell your doctors you are taking xarelto® before any planned medical or dental procedures. before starting xarelto®, tell your doctor about any conditions such as kidney, liver, or bleeding problems. xarelto® is not for patients with artificial heart valves. jim changed his routine. ask your doctor about xarelto®. once a day xarelto® means no regular blood monitoring -- no known dietary restrictions. for more information and savings options, call 1-888-xarelto or visit goxarelto.com. you know, from our 4,000 television commercials. yep, there i am with flo. hoo-hoo! watch it! [chuckles] anyhoo, 3 million people switched to me last year, saving an average of $475.

[sigh] it feels good to help people save... with great discounts like safe driver, multicar, and multipolicy. so call me today. you'll be glad you did. cannonbox! [splash!] concussions are hardly the only danger facing nfl, college, and high school football players, as their season begins in the coming week. take the case of devon walker, a student where i teach at tulane university. devon used to be a student athlete, a defensiveback for the tulane green wave football team. you see him here, number 18. and devon was only making a play last september 8th against tulsa when his helmet collided with his teammate's during a tackle, fracturing his spine. his life was spared, but devon was paralyzed from the neck down. he's now a senior, undergoing physical therapy, and while he's very much part of the tulane

football team, he remains bound to a wheelchair. nicole, i wanted to talk about devon in part because obviously it's happening on my campus, this kid has got a huge spirit. but it's also been interesting to me that since his injury, in certain ways, it's almost like tulane football is almost -- it's almost more popular, like, almost as though this tragedy brought people who wouldn't otherwise think very much about football on to the side of the green wave when they might otherwise just be sort of academic students on campus. which i find both wonderful and a little awful that devon's injury would inspire us in this way. >> yeah, i think we see that every single time there have been -- we were talking about eric la grande during the break at rutgers, and it sort of galvanizes the community. and i was looking at the tulane website, and right off the home page, essentially, you can go to raise money for devon walker. and also different ways the community has been helping him

throughout. that is interesting, and i know it is interesting also, because he has a ton of medical costs that he will have for the rest of his life now. so it's interesting, because you're getting the support and you're trying to monetize it, because you want to help him, and i know that part of it was about, you know, making his house more accessible for him and all of these things that, you know, yes, came out of nowhere and now the tulane football program, and what the community has done for him. you're right, it's kind of a weird dynamic where something tragic happens like that, but sort of galvanizes that community. >> devon has a position that sounds a lot like what i've heard you say today. when asked about it, he says, look, if a receiver is coming across the middle, i'll hit him hard enough so he'll never want to come across the field again. hitting and injuries is part of the game, so any way to cut down on injuries is good, but you can't stop the way the sport is played. so this kid is like, look, this is game. but i wonder if there's something almost coercive about

the possibility of nfl play. so on one hand, this is the game you're signing up, but is part of willingness to sign up for it the idea that in the future, there'll be this greater payoff. >> we still sign up for it, and i played 12 years in the nfl, i'm bone on bone in my right knee. i turned at 27 i would be eligible for a knee replacement when i turned 50. but when you watch these hits and watch them in slow motion and frame by frame, it's this much of a difference between a concussion, a spinal injury, breaking a leg, or just a good shoulder it. a safe hit. so we always lake to live in retrospect and think, what could have happened, and what should happen. fines are going off left and right. the rules are getting safer and safer. and the football fan is complaining and saying, this isn't football anymore. these guys aren't playing football the way we used to play it, so these people are getting injured. they have to do something to at least decrease the number of these injuries. >> and in the meantime, though,

if you really want to get rich off football, right, and not ever have to worry about a spinal cord injury, go own espn, right? there's a recent "new york times" article on the ncaa, where they suggested that espn is actually the real -- and i don't mean -- to putte espn on e spot, but the money and focus on college football by espn as well as its competitors have transformed the game. the point isn't to beat up on espn, which is part of a, you know, as msnbc, is part of a whole network of people who create money by making television. but rather to say that all of us who make money by creating television do so in the relative safety of these spaces while these kids are one inch, right, from either a safe hit or a spinal cord injury. >> yeah, well, absolutely. i think, you know, it's sort of devastating. we were talking about this offstage. i mean, kids are literally -- i don't really think there's a way to make football safer. i think that you can legislate some of the more dangerous hits,

some of the more, you know, projectile-type hits, but we're still talking about people who the goal is to run into each other and to score. there's only going to be able so much. and long-term, we'll have to ask ourselves, are we willing to live with that. that's more of what malcolm gladwell was talking about. are we willing to live with the idea that we're sacrificing people to a game that you really can't legislate, you really can't legislate safety into the game. >> and the answer might be yes. >> we televise boxing, and boxing is completely medically indefensible. why don't we have the same discussion about that? maybe it's because most of those athletes come and go before we even know their names. i think there are a lot of deeper questions embedded there. >> also, we don't televise college box. there's a way in which once it is engaged with our institutions of higher learning, that it becomes -- it becomes problematic about what the core mission of those institutions are. >> i think that goes to a lot of things we've talked about today with compensation too. so spending in athletic departments, in big athletic departments in raising about four times the rate of spending

in universities as whole. so a private plane with an alligator on it, how does that fit into the core missions of an institution of higher education? >> yeah, hmm, how does it? actually, those are great questions that lead us in a bit of the conversation we're about to have, as we're going to talk a little bit about the cost of education and the president's plan around it. i want to say thank you to nicole and to roman and joel and david. hopefully you'll come back at some point as we get into would season as well. but up next, college 101, the president, he got under my skin with his lesson plan this week. have i got a treat for you. new clean whipped creme foundation from covergirl. a delicious new recipe whipped up by clean makeup. they took their clean fresh foundation, added a dash of hydration, then whipped it to smooth matte perfection. finally, a non-drying whip that wears like a dream!

what a treat. new clean whipped creme from easy breezy beautiful covergirl. get glowing with new clean glow blusher and bronzer! car sales events.ng, and that means... and now there's a new way to buy: truecar. at truecar.com we'll show you... what others paid for the car you want, so you'll know if that sales price... is a great price. save time, save money, and never overpay. visit truecar.com ♪ now you can give yourself a kick in the rear! v8 v-fusion plus energy. natural energy from green tea plus fruits and veggies. need a little kick? ooh! could've had a v8. in the juice aisle.

last thursday, president obama traveled to buffalo, new york, to address the pressing issue of higher education costs. and he began with a ringing endorsement of the economic

value of a college degree. >> a higher education is the single best investment you can make in your future. and i'm proud of all the students who are making that investment. and that's not just me saying it. look, right now, the unemployment rate for americans with at least a college degree is about one-third lower than the national average. the incomes of folks who have at least a college degree are more than twice those of americans without a high school diploma. so more than ever before, some form of higher education is the surest path into the middle class. >> so the president went on to make solid proposals, for making this path to the middle class more accessible to all. legislators must cease their relentless attacks on their own state institutions. we need to expand pell grant availability for the poorest

students, and congress must devise a permanent solution to the crushing burden of student debt. i mean, when i heard this, as a full-time college professor for nearly 20 years, i was applauding right along with those enthusiastic students. then president obama made a sudden turn. >> we're going to start rating colleges, not just by which college is the most selective, not just by which college the the most expensive, not just by which college has the nicest facilities. you know, you can get all of that on the existing rating systems. what we want to do is rate them on who's offering the best value to students and taxpayers get a bigger bang for their buck. >> so in the subsequent week, the administration has outlined a race to the top program for colleges and universities. so when we come back, we're going to talk about whether or not it's a good idea to transform america's world-class system of higher education into a market place, judged on how quickly and cheaply it produces

young workers for a decimated job market. oops, maybe you can already tell what i think of the plan. (announcer) at scottrade, our clients trade and invest

exactly how they want. with scottrade's online banking, i get one view of my bank and brokerage accounts with one login... to easily move my money when i need to. plus, when i call my local scottrade office, i can talk to someone who knows how i trade. because i don't trade like everybody. i trade like me. i'm with scottrade. (announcer) scottrade.

awarded five-stars from smartmoney magazine. dr. king was just 15 years old when he enrolled here at moorhouse. he was an unknown, undersized, unassuming young freshman who lived at home with his parents. now, i think it's fair to say he wasn't the coolest kid on campus. for the suits he wore, his classmates called him tweed. but his education at moorhouse helped to forge the intellect, the discipline, the compassion, the sole force that would transform america. >> that was president obama speaking to the 2013 graduating class of moorhouse college in may, and that language of helping to forge his intellect, his discipline, his compassion, his soul force that would transform america, that's what all of us hope we are doing.

that is what we want to be doing in the world, but the administration this week sent out a new proposal for a market place-like system for institutions of higher learn. and if they failed to make the grade, they may no longer get the dollars. and the impact on historically black colleges and universities like moorhouse may be particularly acute. joining me now is lily garcia, who's vice president of the national education association and back with us, dorian warren, associate professor at columbia university. okay, i have all the feelings, and i know it's because this is my real job. so i had all the -- like, i get this is not everybody's biggest problem. but i really was astonished by this market place discourse. >> and i'm a sixth grade teacher from utah. and as i was looking at this, we want our kids in that pipeline to college. we want graduation to be the key to, you know, we'll get into higher education, whether that's trade school, community colleges, universities, you can

go as far as you want to go. and we've never said, we will judge that university by how much money you make after you graduate. we talk about like expanding their possibilities. what it means to be alive. and so, as i was, like you, listening to affordable college, and going, yes! pell grants, restructure those loans, according to your income. that makes sense. i went to college on a national direct student loan. 3%, had ten years to pay for it. paid for it in eight. my country made a good investment in me and got a dividend for that. let's talk about that. and all of a sudden, and we're going to rank them. what?! >> and that was the turn. i kept thinking, there are a lot of things broken in our country. tons, bridges, roads, all that kind of thing, but our system of higher education is, in fact, for the most part, not broken. it is broken in that there is such little access, because of the cost, and the president was addressing that initially. and it's broken in that there are these new for-profit

colleges that have emerged. . and those deserve very real critique. but most of our state universities, most of our private colleges and liberal art colleges are really doing transformative work for young people. >> and you raise a really important point about frankly how muddled this proposal is. you can't make the assumption that all kinds of colleges and universities, that costs are increasing for the same reasons. at my very elite university, columbia university, the reason why tuition's increasing is different than the system here in new york. the reason why suni is increasing tuition is because the state legislature is declining to give the amount of support necessary for a robust system of -- >> in states across the country, you can see just very clearly, on the chart, it's just down, down, down. states are cutting the amount that they're investing, their government investing, and because they're no longer investing -- >> if we want to rate something, we should rate state legislatures on how well they support their public higher education systems. here's the other problem, melissa, frankly with the

proposal. if it's tied to federal support, my university, your university, they're going to opt out am so the point, because they don't really need the federal money. they have huge, billion-dollar endowments. so if they don't want the ratings or they don't want to be rated, they'll just opt out, and that's not containing costs for students. >> yeah, well, tulane doesn't, but -- tulane wishes it had an endowment of that size. but that said, it is true that some of the most vulnerable universities and colleges, those who actually take some of the students from your sixth grade, you know, class, are the ones that may be most hit by this. we were looking at historically black college and university dwrau graduation rates. at the top, they are as good as any elite university in terms of their rates of graduation. spellman, 79%. howard, 64%. hampton, up over 54. but when you go down to the bottom, the bottom five, they actually really are quite abysmal. down to 10%, 16% graduation rates. what that suggests to me is we

should not put all colleges in the same category, but also just like costs are increasing at some places for different reasons, graduation rates are really quite different in these universities for different -- the university of the district of columbia, udc, is not spellman in terms of the kinds of students who can afford to go there. >> and again, as an elementary teacher, i kept thinking of all these parallels to what we have survived, barely survived, from no child left untested. and i thought, the cautionary tale here, the lessons learned are just like going over people's heads. they said, oh, we want to know, and here's the good thing, we want to know how well schools are doing. we want to know if we're leaving kids behind. yes, yes, let's find out. and they went, but that's really hard to do. so let's just give everybody a commercialized standardized test and we'll rank and label your ski school by how well your special ed kids do. and we said, no.

so now we're going to do something very similar with higher ed? >> there's another lesson to be learned, which i don't want to miss. there are changes that need to probably happen in universities and colleges, right? and we're luddites, so we don't like things to change. how do we on the one hand say, look, mr. president, administration, and country, we are willing to be flexible and to change, but turning us into widget makers is not the right way to do it. how do we balance that? >> well, if we think grade inflation is a problem now in colleges and universities, just wait until this goes into effect. because they're going to be -- there's going to be so much pressure on us to give our students grades, to make sure they graduate, because that's one of the metrics. we're not saying that this is a total, you know -- wshe should have this discussion, we should this debate, but let's talk to administrators, let's talk to parents, let's talk to students and engage them in some solutions that aren't based on cookie cutter, no child left behind -- >> i'm down with saying that this is a debate. i'm going to right now say, mr. duncan, secretary duncan, if you

would like to come on the "mhp" show and have a conversation about higher education and why we're not widget makers, i would so love to have you at the table, secretary duncan. okay, seriously, you can come. lily and dorian, thanks to help me process my feelings about this. but up next, a 12-year-old already fighting for her right to vote. our foot soldier joins us live. ♪ ♪ we go, go, we don't have to go solo ♪ ♪ fire, fire, you can take me higher ♪ ♪ take me to the mountains, start a revolution ♪ ♪ hold my hand, we can make, we can make a contribution ♪ ♪ brand-new season, keep it in motion ♪ ♪ 'cause the rhyme is the reason ♪ ♪ break through, man, it doesn't matter who you're talking to ♪ [ male announcer ] completely redesigned for whatever you love to do. the all-new nissan versa note. your door to more. ♪

her busy saturday begins with back pain, when... hey pam, you should take advil. why? you can take four advil for all day relief. so i should give up my two aleve for more pills with advil? you're joking right? for my back pain, i want my aleve. folks have suffered from frequent heartburn. but getting heartburn and then treating day after day is a thing of the past. block the acid with prilosec otc, and don't get heartburn in the first place. [ male announcer ] one pill each morning. 24 hours. zero heartburn. are you kidding me? no, it's only 15 calories. [ male announcer ] with reddi wip, fruit never sounded more delicious. mmm. [ male announcer ] with 15 calories per serving and real cream, the sound of reddi wip is the sound of joy.

the 50th anniversary of the march on washington this week reminded the nation of the importance of activism and that ordinary individuals can make a huge difference for all of us. around the country, whether it's by protesting against the infringement of women's rights in texas or staging sit-ins in the florida governor's office against stand your ground laws or rallying for moral mondays against right wing legislation in north carolina, hundreds of individuals are fighting. the problems are big, but some

of those individuals are quite small, literally. our foot soldier this week is just 12 years old and even though she can't vote, madison is fighting for the voting rights of her fellow north carolinans. she has gathered more than 12,000 signatures on a move on petition, asking the governor to meet with her and discuss his elimination of voting preregistration for 16 and 17 year olds. so far, the governor has called the notion ridiculous. but we couldn't wait to meet with this young activist. madison kimrey joins me live from raleigh, north carolina. how are you, madison? >> hi. i'm good. >> so you're 12. do you think of yourself as an activist? >> yeah. i do. i love protesting and i mean, i don't love it, obviously, i mean, who would love protesting. you don't want to have to. but i mean, i like standing up for what i believe in, so yeah.

>> what made you feel like even though you don't love protesting because who would want to at such a beautiful point, but why, why was this something important enough to you to go out and do it? >> i just -- i felt like i needed, i mean, i looked -- i research all the topics, i love learning about new things, but there's just certain points that i felt that were important enough to me to just protest and stand up for what i thought was right. >> one of them is voting. tell me what it is you want to meet with the governor about. >> well, after the staff person at the mansion gave me the cake that night, and then pat mccrory's spokesperson made the statement to wral about how it was a response to a child's request and it was a joke, and i thought that they weren't actually taking me seriously as to how i felt about it, so i started the petition and i

wanted to sit down and meet with my governor. >> go back and explain to my viewers who might not know your story about the cake. >> okay. so i was out there earlier that day, outside the governor's mansion across the street, and a lot of like the planned parenthood group and stuff were out there. there were a lot of other nice people. but i had a voice lesson that afternoon. i live in burlington, so we had to go back for my voice lesson but once i got out of my voice lesson i was scrolling through my twitter feed and i saw that he had given them cookies which really made me mad. like why couldn't he go out and actually speak to them instead of giving them cookies. so then later that night, about 9:00, i was scrolling through my twitter again and i saw that there was still people out there, and so i was like mom, mom, we have to go back, can we please go back. and i finally got her to take me back to the governor's mansion, and that's when the staff person came out to close the door of the mansion and we were all like hey, those cookies were really

good earlier, we want some brownies. and that's when they brought cake out to the gates of the mansion and i went to go get the cake. >> he did seem to miss the sarcasm there, huh? >> yeah. i don't really understand how. i mean, i started joking about how oh, pat mccrory is marie antoinette and we started making signs. after the staff person -- the spokesperson made the statement i was like no, they're not taking me seriously. >> what would you say to people who say that having a 12-year-old and other young people involved in politics is simply ridiculous? >> i feel like not all young people are interested in politics and that's okay, but you need to -- if you feel like something's wrong, don't be afraid to take a stand and i feel like a lot of adults think that oh, people are just putting the kids up to this and all that stuff. and sometimes that does happen, but 90% of the time, the kids

know what they're talking about and they know what -- most kids have learned something about the topic that they're -- and even if they're forced into it, they still have at least learned a little bit. >> madison, let me ask you this question. are you planning to run for office? >> i don't know right now, actually. it's a possibility. >> well, tell you what, when you're ready to run for office, you let us know. you can make your announcement right here, okay? >> okay. >> thank you for all of your work and for caring about your fellow citizens, and for being out there, being involved in politics. >> it's what i love to do. >> thank you, madison. that is our show for today. thank you to the really incredible madison kimrey. who wants to see a panel of madison and ashawn johnson from chicago? thanks to you at home for watching. see you again tomorrow morning, 10:00 a.m. eastern. we'll take a closer look at the president's speech at the lincoln memorial and why the

president is more lbj than mlk. now it's time for a preview of "weekend with alex witt." >> i was having visions of president kimrey. what do you think? i was like wow, you go. it was great. bring her for the show. i would totally watch that one. when we talk about this on the show, u.n. weapons inspectors leave syria ahead of schedule. does this suggest the u.s. is closer to launching air strikes? we are live across the region. plus, why didn't any of the gop leaders show up for the 50th anniversary of the march on washington? and could these cameras worn by police in one city put an end to the stop and frisk controversies? don't go anywhere. we'll be right back.

dramatic developments at this hour on syria. meetings expected at the white house today and capitol hill tomorrow. can the president convince congress? in the mediterranean, poised to strike. all the pieces in place for u.s. military action. the big questions this hour, will it happen and what could be the fallout? an